PART 4 of a 4 part article on the words of consecration of the Precious Blood, focusing on the pro multis issue.

Last week, WDTPRS said we must move away from “for all” as a translation of pro multis. It is not heresy (as some claim), but it makes the Church’s teaching fuzzy for those who hear it if they are not fully catechized. The translation “for all” might fly if the faithful were well-instructed, but they sadly are not. Therefore, the nebulous sound of “for all” gives people an impression very different from what the Church teaches about the application of the fruits of the Sacrifice Christ made for all. We need a phrase which gives the impression of vast numbers of the saved while leaving it clear that not all are certainly going to be saved. I chose “for/on behalf of multitudes”.

I return now to a point I made before. Translations of the Mass of the Latin Rite are to be made from the Missale Romanum which is in Latin. The Missale Romanum is in Latin – not Greek – not Aramaic. Scripture has immense importance in preparing translations of Mass texts, but we are not Protestants: Scripture is not the only source of revelation Catholics refer to. The Church made the decision to join different Biblical accounts of the Last Supper together and use specific carefully considered language for the consecration. A Council explained the theology clearly and explicitly on this very point. Those facts have weight.

His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger confronts this in God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003). His Eminence makes three points (pp. 37-8, n. 10): 1) Jesus died to save all and to deny that is not in any way a Christian attitude, 2) God lovingly leaves people free to reject salvation and some do, and 3):

“The fact that in Hebrew the expression “many” would mean the same thing as “all” is not relevant to the question under consideration inasmuch as it is a question of translating, not a Hebrew text here, but a Latin text (from the Roman Liturgy), which is directly related to a Greek text (the New Testament). The institution narratives in the New Testament are by no means simply a translation (still less, a mistaken translation) of Isaiah; rather, they constitute an independent source”.

What Card. Ratzinger did here is cut loose the raft of emotion and conjecture lashed to the pier built by Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias, upon which ICEL justified rendering “for many” as “for all”. Remember that Jeremias and then Fr. Max Zerwick, SJ (in Notitiae in 1970) used Aramaic and Isaiah 53 arguments for their change to “for all.” Whether Jeremias was right or wrong (and I think his argument was at best tenuous) is entirely beside the point now. First, we are not Protestants who approach doctrine from a standpoint of sola Scriptura … Scripture alone. Second, we are not historical-critics when we approach the consecration of the Mass, we are believing Catholics. Third, the Missale Romanum and the Tradition and teachings of the Church have their own value, a value not to be abandoned in the face of conjecture and the vagaries of historical-critical Scripture scholarship or the concerns of non-Catholics. Fourth, the Missale Romanum is in Latin. This is a key point which every reader of WDTPRS must understand.

The Church today, as in every age, will have new insights into the meaning of the Lord Jesus’ Sacrifice. New insights must be in harmony with and deepen the previously defined and clear teachings in our Tradition and Magisterium, not confuse them. Look at it this way: if the Pope or a new Council chose to explain a new emphasis using a document of sufficient weight and authority, and if the Holy See then changed the Latin of the Missale Romanum to say “pro vobis et pro universis”, then there would be a linguistic justification for saying “for all” as an accurate translation of the Missale Romanum. But the Church cannot change the Latin from pro multis to pro universis. That would explicitly contradict the Church’s teaching as expressed in Latin by the Council of Trent (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, 4). Such a change would contradict doctrine and not simply change emphasis about an aspect of that doctrine. Clear English must reflect the clarity of the Latin. What to do?

Dear readers, the last few weeks have been ponderous. But this is a matter of great concern for every one who has ever or will ever warm a pew in the coming decades. What will ICEL and the Holy See choose this time? “For many… for all”? The Congregation for Divine Worship’s document Liturgiam authenticam (LA) established norms for translations. From LA the working guidelines, the ratio translationis was developed. The ratio translationis says:

“Given the long history of the Roman Rite which developed in part around certain divisions in the practice of the faith, seen most acutely in liturgical and credal language, translators must show great care in expressing the mysteries of the faith as understood in the Catholic tradition. As a result, traditional Catholic expression is not ordinarily rendered through language which belongs to other faith communities.”

“For many” reflects defined Catholic doctrine. “For all” reflects the concerns of “other faith communities”. However, in working draft of the English language translation now in preparation in a footnote we find:

“The translation of pro multis as ‘for all’ has been retained in the proposed text as a rendering of the original biblical text, even though it does not appear to be a literal translation.”

Now you have the background for the controversy. When it comes up in the press, and it will, you will know what is going on. In WDTPRS for the Simili modo section of the Roman Canon we examined with four week’s worth of columns the problems in the English translation of the consecration of the chalice involved with the word “take” and also at length the words “for all”. It is time to get this information into more people’s hands. Also, since these articles are designed to promote greater love through greater knowledge of our prayers of the Mass, I have aspired to change forever the way you hear the consecration formula. Fuzzy as it may be the phrase “for all” does not invalidate the Mass. Moreover, even if that less than clear translation is maintained in the future, you will now always be capable of hearing it in the right way.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:After the supper was concluded, in a similar way taking into His holy and venerable hands also this noble chalice, in like manner giving thanks to You He blessed and He gave it to His disciples, saying: All of you receive and drink from this: for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out abundantly on your behalf and on the behalf of multitudes for the remission of sins. Do this for my remembrance.

Cardinal Ratzinger says (correctly, of course) that we have
the power to refuse God’s salvation. In other words, there is
no automatic salvation for all (or for any). But that
doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that, as it were de
facto, all our saved. Hence the CCC’s teaching about hope
that all are saved.

(It’s also worth noting that in the body of the book’s text,
directly above the footnote quoted in this post, Ratzinger
says: “I leave open the question of whether it was sensible
to choose the translation ‘for all’ here and, thus, to
confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which
the process of interpretation remains in any case
indispensable.” Now, I think that “for many” is the more
sensible translation, and if the now-pope is going to order
that this translation be used, that’s fine. But we should
still note the careful caveats in the then-cardinal’s book.
He didn’t claim it’s anything like simply obvious that the
“for all” translation was a mistake.)

He didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t claim itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s anything like simply obvious that the
Ã¢â‚¬Å“for allÃ¢â‚¬Â translation was a mistake.

Any first-semester Latin student with a Cassell’s dictionary can see it’s “simply obvious” that “for all” is an incorrect translation of “pro multis”. I understand that at no time in the history of the Latin language has “pro multis” ever had a “for all” connotation. So at no time has the Church ever meant “for all” when it said “pro multis” in the words of consecration. So why all the attempted obfuscation about correcting now an obviously agenda-driven mistranslation?

He didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t claim itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s anything like simply obvious that the
Ã¢â‚¬Å“for allÃ¢â‚¬Â translation was a mistake.

Any first-semester Latin student with a Cassell’s dictionary can see it’s “simply obvious” that “for all” is an incorrect translation of “pro multis”. I understand that at no time in the history of the Latin language has “pro multis” ever had a “for all” connotation. So at no time has the Church ever meant “for all” when it said “pro multis” in the words of consecration. So why all the attempted obfuscation about correcting now an obviously agenda-driven mistranslation?

(Still trying to get those italics turned off. As the Church has found out, some of these “obvious mistakes” can be hard to correct!)

He didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t claim itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s anything like simply obvious that the
Ã¢â‚¬Å“for allÃ¢â‚¬Â translation was a mistake.

Any first-semester Latin student with a Cassell’s dictionary can see it’s “simply obvious” that “for all” is an incorrect translation of “pro multis”. I understand that at no time in the history of the Latin language has “pro multis” ever had a “for all” connotation. So at no time has the Church ever meant “for all” when it said “pro multis” in the words of consecration. So why all the attempted obfuscation about correcting now an obviously agenda-driven mistranslation?

I must inform you, that I possess a 1962 Sunday and Feastday missal published by
Redemptorists from Amsterdam, which contains the “for all” already, probably
inspired by the same theological and historio-critical errors and speculations
as articulated by Prof. Jeremias (a protestant).

As to doctrine. The first Gospels were written in Greek, and as such, we must take
even if we want to be historio-critical, their meaning and exact translation, which is:
“for many”. End of discussion. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and free from
error. Both in Scripture ÃƒÂ¡nd in Tradition (Roman Rite e.g., but also in all other
known rites, except for the Ethiopian Rite which uses the 1 Cor 11:23 as far as I
know). From that must be concluded, that “for all” is erroneous, pastorally
speaking dangerous (it could lead to the heretical concept of All-Men Redemption, first
appearing theologically under Origenes). Therefore we must say, that while it
does not directly invalidate the consecration (“for many” is not of essence, according to
St. Thomas Aquinas, otherwise the Ethiopians would have celebrated invalidly for
2000 years and then St. Paul’s institution words and many of the narratives of the Gospels
would all be incomplete forms), it remains erroneous and possbily harmful.

In Poland good Cardinal Wyszynski prevented a mistranslation and “za wielu” was
used. And even in liberal France the consecration is NOT invalid (pour la multitude, means
“for the many”). Multitudo is those that form many, but not all.

Again, one reason more to attend the Traditional Roman (“Tridentine”) Mass.

JMR 2009 Literal English:
In the same way, after having supper, and taking the splendid chalice with His holy and venerable hands, likewise He has blessed it giving thanks to Thee, and He has given it to His disciples, saying: “Everyone take and drink from it: this is truly My blood’s new and eternal covenantal chalice, [faith’s sacrament] which for you and for many people will be shed for sins’ forgiveness. Do this in My commemoration.”

I wrestled with that last phrase (in my commemoration) as to whether it should be an expression of purpose or of place (in time). I also wonder if it had been a Latin original expression whether it would have been in the dative absolute.

Also using poured with blood doesn’t reflect what the Lord intended when He said it knowing He was going to SHED His blood: that should loose you points with the slavish literal translation evaluators.

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

SHOPPING ONLINE? Please, always come here first!

Enter Amazon through my link. Click the image below (they took away our search box!). Fr Z will get a small percentage of what you spend. (Pssst - Can't see it? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)

“This blog is like a fusion of the Baroque ‘salon’ with its well-tuned harpsichord around which polite society gathered for entertainment and edification and, on the other hand, a Wild West “saloon” with its out-of-tune piano and swinging doors, where everyone has a gun and something to say. Nevertheless, we try to point our discussions back to what it is to be Catholic in this increasingly difficult age, to love God, and how to get to heaven.” – Fr. Z

YOUR RECENT COMMENTS

Fallibilissimo: I don’t know if I’m falling prey to Poe’s law of the internet here. I’m fully appreciati ve of the need for society finding solutions to and fighting the effects of glabal warming...

JonPatrick: All of our statues, images, and crosses were covered, even the little crosses on the flagpoles. After Jesus says in effect “I AM is my name” ; that is calling himself God, he...

Deacon Ed Peitler: Looking for reverentia l Catholic liturgies? Come to Front Royal, Virginia. You have your choice of St. John the Baptist Church or, if you child is lucky enough to get into...

Paypal Donation

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

My "challenge coin" for my 25th anniversary of ordination in 2016.

Want one? I do exchanges with military and LEOs, etc. and you can make a donation.

I travel a good deal. As I get older, it takes more of a toll. My main airline - sigh - is Delta. Were I to get some Gift Cards for Delta, I could more easily upgrade for longer flights. I'm just sayin'. I'd be much obliged. HERE

New miscellaneous releases and events

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

For example...

A great hymnal…

Because it matters what children read…

I carry one of these super-strong rosaries in my spare mag pouch! The Swiss Guards have them too!

The Swiss Guard have these rosaries!For the story clickHERE and HERE (esp. 18:00)

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

To set up a recurring, monthly donation via PAYPAL (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! Do you want yet another alternative to PayPal? I have set up an account with
CONTINUE TO GIVE
Get a link to donate via CONTINUE TO GIVE using your smart phone.
SEND MESSAGE:
4827563
TO:
715-803-4772
They take a larger percent taste, but they are an alternative.

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

This catechism helped to bring Fr. Z into the Catholic Church!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

What people say about Fr. Z

"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank" "Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy" "the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
- Michael Sean Winters

"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco

“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
- Comment

"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha

"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
- Comment

"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous

Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment

Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine

RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter

“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed

Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5

I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog.
- Tom in comment

More stuff…

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

Admin Stuff

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Catholic Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own. Opinions expressed by commentators in the comments belong to the commentators.